[CCWG-ACCT] SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report after plenary 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Thu Mar 30 07:49:27 UTC 2017


Dear All, First of all ,I would like to express my disappointment and
frustrations resulted the way Cheryl and Steve both interrupted my
intervention when I was describing the problem .
The requires formal apology from these two respectful persons . This is not
the first time they interrupt me and they have exceeded the limit.
Secondly, I am happy that the term "RANK" was dropped in the part relating
to "membership ""
In this respect I object to the statement made by Cheryl when she said
"MEMBERSHIP RANK "in her English language is equivalent to "MEMBERSHIP
COLLECTIVELY "This was not a true statement as ono one seems to teaching
anyone else linguistic terms.
I interpreted her as saying my knowledge in English is poor and
insufficient as I did not know the meaning of"MEMBERSHIP RANK ".This
statement that she publicly made when replied to me is formally contested .
This kind of underestimating the ability and competence of others requires
formal appolgy, .
Thirdly, I had to leave the call due to medical check up and understand
that Steve proposed to delete the term "MUTUAL"in the term "Mutual
Accountability" As a formal Member from CCWG appointed by GAC , I strongly
object to such deletion.
Pls be careful that there must be consensus on any action being taken
Regards
Kavouss

2017-03-30 7:19 GMT+02:00 Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>:

> Hello,
>
> I agree on the process point in Avri's mail as i think it will have been
> good for the SO/AC accountability leads to get back to the sub-group on
> this. I personally have not been consistent with subgroups meetings lately
> hence i may not have full glimpse of what gave the leads the confidence to
> update subgroup documents on the fly, i guess it could be that they've
> checked the temperature of the subgroup on such hypothesis in the past.
> Nevertheless, the leads sure will be in the best position to do the needful
> (i note though that the subgroup was copied in Steve's mail).
>
> That said, I for one would have loved to see the "mutual" maintained but
> owning to realities on ground at it concerns SO/AC relationships i have my
> doubts. Recent events especially those related to the Atlarge review and
> considering how some SO/AC members/leaders reacted to it, further confirms
> my doubt on whether this community is matured enough to have such level of
> cross accountability. Besides, it's "somewhat" impractical for some groups
> like the ASO whose accountability is largely to/from the RIR community. The
> extent of checking SSAC's accountability who largely operates closed (for
> good reasons) is also one of the reasons why mutual may be ineffective or
> at best become one sided.
>
> Regards
>
> On 29 Mar 2017 4:01 p.m., "avri doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I find this way of explaining it unfortunately.
>>
>> The subgroup sent a paper with the word 'Mutual' in.  For the subgroup
>> leaders to now indicate that this was just the whimsy of a minority of
>> the plenary when that had been the recommendation of the subgroup seems
>> backwards.
>>
>> I believe that the plenary group chairs played fast and loose with the
>> process by changing the work of the subteam on the fly instead of
>> sending it back to the subteam.  It should have either approved the
>> second reading or sent it back for further work.
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>>  I'm late / I'm late / For a very important date. / No time to say
>> "Hello, Goodbye". / I'm late, I'm late, I'm late.
>>
>>
>> On 29-Mar-17 10:40, Steve DelBianco wrote:
>> > Per the decision reached on today’s plenary call, here is the SOAC
>> > Accountability Report as approved for Public Comment.
>> >
>> > The 2 minor edits to the previous draft are:
>> >
>> >     remove the word “ranks” on page 7.
>> >     remove the word “mutual” on page 32.
>> >
>> >
>> > The call for Public Comment could indicate this explanation and seek
>> > community input:
>> >
>> >
>> >     A minority of CCWG members prefer that the optional annual
>> >     Accountability Roundtable discussion described on page 32 be
>> >     expanded to include “mutual” accountability, where each SO/AC is
>> >     held accountable to the other SO/ACs.
>> >
>> > From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org
>> > <mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
>> > Date: Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 3:01 PM
>> > To: Accountability Cross Community
>> > <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> > <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
>> > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr at gmail.com
>> > <mailto:langdonorr at gmail.com>>, farzaneh badii
>> > <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>>,
>> > "ws2-so_ac at icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac at icann.org>"
>> > <ws2-so_ac at icann.org <mailto:ws2-so_ac at icann.org>>, ACCT-Staff
>> > <acct-staff at icann.org <mailto:acct-staff at icann.org>>, Bernard Turcotte
>> > <turcotte.bernard at gmail.com <mailto:turcotte.bernard at gmail.com>>
>> > Subject: SOAC Accountability group in CCWG WS2 - report for plenary
>> > 2nd reading, on 29-Mar-2017
>> >
>> > To our CCWG colleagues:
>> >
>> > Attached, for your consideration, is the report of the SOAC
>> > Accountability group of Work Stream 2, revised per comments at our
>> > first reading at the 10-Mar plenary in Copenhagen.  Including:
>> >
>> >
>> >     Clarify we are looking only at activities within ICANN, so we are
>> >     not looking at NRO and IETF outside of ICANN.
>> >
>> >     For best practices instead of saying”should consider”, we say
>> >     "should implement, to the extent these practices are applicable
>> >     and an improvement…”
>> >
>> >     Suggest that future ATRTs may examine the extent to which best
>> >     practices have been implemented.
>> >
>> >     Recommend an optional mutual accountability roundtable at annual
>> >     general meetings, at the option of SO/AC chairs.
>> >
>> >     Add 5 examples of reasons to close a meeting to public observation
>> >
>> >     Make best practices more consistent regarding meeting notes and
>> >     minutes
>> >
>> >     Add the dimension of diversity to outreach best practices.
>> >
>> > We have also attached a redline from version 1.0 to version 1.1
>> >
>> > Our group looks forward to your questions and comments during 2nd
>> > reading on 29-Mar.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Steve DelBianco, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, and Farzaneh Badii
>> > Co-Rapporteurs, SOAC Accountability Group, CCWG WS2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170330/9070e34a/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list